gc70
Member
Hey, CFriesen, let me know when you find a "blank and unused withdrawl slip" at a bank that has a "value exceeding $1,000."
Ain't that the truth.
Ain't that the truth.
For those who want to stop the "mentally ill" from firearms
- Thread starter FW
- Start date
- Status
Cosmoline
Member
When it comes to paying clients, they'll find something they need to treat at great expense. They always seem to when the suit goes to court. The categories are so numerous and so broad they can be used to include most of the human population. If dogs could pay, they'd find some mental illnesses for them as well. The best of them are glorified drug pushers.
ShrinkMD,
I can understand the opinion you’d have of the “armchair forensic psychiatrists” considering your field. I occasionally feel the same way with the “armchair investment gurus.”
I hope, however, that you can understand that there ARE concerns from those of us outside your field. This discussion affects the “lay community,” and they fully have the right to express their concerns with it. I, myself, have concerns as well.
Too often we see how a law is not held to the “spirit” of the law—it is always held to the “letter” of the law. It’s no great secret that the Patriot Act has been used in much broader application than national security. It is well documented how the RICO act has been misused and even abused in its history. With those precedents in mind, it is not unreasonable that we will want to discuss and evaluate ANY law where other parties can make decisions that will affect your freedoms for the rest of your life.
So, I am afraid you’ll have to bear with us.
With that in mind, I wanted to address a couple of things.
Looks like is a dangerous thing. I’d have to see a legal remedy before I place confidence in a “looks like.”
And therein lies the problem, good sir. I would have to see substantial safe-guards in place to insure that people don’t simply slip through the cracks of this imperfect system.
Last week, the 200th person was exonerated by DNA evidence in incorrect convictions. The person that was freed last week did 20 years in prison for a rape he didn’t commit.
Imperfect systems have very real and harsh consequences for those that it fails. Scrutinizing any legislation such as this is not an unreasonable request. Even though it intrudes on your area of expertise, the instant it is considered as our nation’s law, it transcends industry. The persons that will be voting for or against this will likely not have a MD in psychiatry, either.
I don’t see a lot of the “mental illness is bogus thing” here. I see a LOT of concerned people who want to wrap their brains around the implications of this, and insure that it is not abused, manipulated, or misapplied. I see a lot of people who are not quite willing to shrug off “imperfections” in this discussion. I don’t see anything unreasonable in that.
As I said earlier in this thread, I get concerned when there is an emotional call for legislation whenever a tragedy occurs. As I am sure you are well aware, decisions born of emotional responses can often be short-sighted and ill-advised. Tragedies happen every day. We don’t have to like them, but we have to accept that it is part of life. The mentally ill with firearms is Public Enemy #1 this month. It will be something else next week month when the media gets bored with this story.
All the best.
John
I can understand the opinion you’d have of the “armchair forensic psychiatrists” considering your field. I occasionally feel the same way with the “armchair investment gurus.”
I hope, however, that you can understand that there ARE concerns from those of us outside your field. This discussion affects the “lay community,” and they fully have the right to express their concerns with it. I, myself, have concerns as well.
Too often we see how a law is not held to the “spirit” of the law—it is always held to the “letter” of the law. It’s no great secret that the Patriot Act has been used in much broader application than national security. It is well documented how the RICO act has been misused and even abused in its history. With those precedents in mind, it is not unreasonable that we will want to discuss and evaluate ANY law where other parties can make decisions that will affect your freedoms for the rest of your life.
So, I am afraid you’ll have to bear with us.
With that in mind, I wanted to address a couple of things.
Looks like is a dangerous thing. I’d have to see a legal remedy before I place confidence in a “looks like.”
And therein lies the problem, good sir. I would have to see substantial safe-guards in place to insure that people don’t simply slip through the cracks of this imperfect system.
Last week, the 200th person was exonerated by DNA evidence in incorrect convictions. The person that was freed last week did 20 years in prison for a rape he didn’t commit.
Imperfect systems have very real and harsh consequences for those that it fails. Scrutinizing any legislation such as this is not an unreasonable request. Even though it intrudes on your area of expertise, the instant it is considered as our nation’s law, it transcends industry. The persons that will be voting for or against this will likely not have a MD in psychiatry, either.
I don’t see a lot of the “mental illness is bogus thing” here. I see a LOT of concerned people who want to wrap their brains around the implications of this, and insure that it is not abused, manipulated, or misapplied. I see a lot of people who are not quite willing to shrug off “imperfections” in this discussion. I don’t see anything unreasonable in that.
As I said earlier in this thread, I get concerned when there is an emotional call for legislation whenever a tragedy occurs. As I am sure you are well aware, decisions born of emotional responses can often be short-sighted and ill-advised. Tragedies happen every day. We don’t have to like them, but we have to accept that it is part of life. The mentally ill with firearms is Public Enemy #1 this month. It will be something else next week month when the media gets bored with this story.
All the best.
John
precisionshootist
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 186
This issue is really quite simple. NICS is an unconstitutional “infringement” on the 2nd amendment rights of all Americans. So what information is incorporated into NICS is irrelevant. It may sound irrational but read the second amendment carefully and find where “mental health” is a qualification for exercising your right to bear arms. It’s not.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
precisionshootist, the problem is that your opinion or my opinion about the constitutionality of the NICS is totally irrelevant to anything.
Those who wanted the BOR wrote that the insane should not be allowed to bear arms. (Anti-Federalist Papers) If somebody can tell me how, in a country of 300 million, there's some way which is both constitutional and more efficient than the NICS, I'd truly like to know. Be that as it may, the NICS exists, and we're stuck with it.
By the way: The earth is bi-polar...
Art
Those who wanted the BOR wrote that the insane should not be allowed to bear arms. (Anti-Federalist Papers) If somebody can tell me how, in a country of 300 million, there's some way which is both constitutional and more efficient than the NICS, I'd truly like to know. Be that as it may, the NICS exists, and we're stuck with it.
By the way: The earth is bi-polar...
Art
That's easy, Art. Simply drop NICS and you have a way that's Constitutional.
I agree with FW. Our focus should be getting more and more peaceful individuals to own and carry firearms, not worry about every few nutcase who MIGHT buy a firearm.
It's pretty damn hard to label anyone a nutcase anyway.
I agree with FW. Our focus should be getting more and more peaceful individuals to own and carry firearms, not worry about every few nutcase who MIGHT buy a firearm.
It's pretty damn hard to label anyone a nutcase anyway.
Shrinkmd
Member
Clarify and off to bed...
JWarren,
I agree that NICS is an infringement of the RKBA and doesn't belong. I also agree with Oleg's thesis that firearms are genocide prevention, and that even horrible events like these are essentially the price we all pay for liberty.
This business of restricting liberties due to parens patriae and the state's police power is a complicated one, however, especially in an admittedly imprecise field like psychiatry. Is there any wiggle room between nanny state and no state at all?
I've been reading similar related threads, and there does seem to be a temptation by some to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Then again, my worldview is shaped by dealing with those seeking help, as well as providing help to people against their will.
In most states, you can't medicate someone (besides in an emergency, as in needing a shot to calm someone down, put them in restraints) against their will without a court order. Some states go by substituted judgment, as opposed to "best interests" So if someone, when they were sane, said that they never wanted medicine, and could prove this in court, could avoid being given meds against their will. Other states go more on dangerousness and are less concerned about what the person wanted.
I also agree that in any system there are abuses and misrepresentations. I see people doing stupid things all the time. Where are the attorneys on THR? I'm curious to hear their input as well.
Goodnight!
JWarren,
I agree that NICS is an infringement of the RKBA and doesn't belong. I also agree with Oleg's thesis that firearms are genocide prevention, and that even horrible events like these are essentially the price we all pay for liberty.
This business of restricting liberties due to parens patriae and the state's police power is a complicated one, however, especially in an admittedly imprecise field like psychiatry. Is there any wiggle room between nanny state and no state at all?
I've been reading similar related threads, and there does seem to be a temptation by some to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Then again, my worldview is shaped by dealing with those seeking help, as well as providing help to people against their will.
In most states, you can't medicate someone (besides in an emergency, as in needing a shot to calm someone down, put them in restraints) against their will without a court order. Some states go by substituted judgment, as opposed to "best interests" So if someone, when they were sane, said that they never wanted medicine, and could prove this in court, could avoid being given meds against their will. Other states go more on dangerousness and are less concerned about what the person wanted.
I also agree that in any system there are abuses and misrepresentations. I see people doing stupid things all the time. Where are the attorneys on THR? I'm curious to hear their input as well.
Goodnight!
They have always supported preventing those who have been adjucated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others from buying a gun. That's common sense and nothing new.
That's not common sense, Mike Haas. All you are saying is that the NRA supports infringing upon the Second Amendment. Good thing I prefer the GOA.
Are we also going to start being subject to background checks on axes, materials for pipe bombs, fertilizer, vehicles, etc. to make sure that crazy people don't have access to them? Hell, just because a person can't buy something doesn't mean he can't get something.
By singling out guns instead of other objects that can be used to kill, you are pretty much siding with gun control lobbies although you might not realize it.
Instead of focusing on whether a nutcase can buy a gun or not, we need to focus on getting enough guns in the hands of the peaceful citizens. If some nutcase is intent on killing, no law is going to stop him. But what will stop him is if a citizen with a firearm takes him out. I bet Cho wouldn't have been as successful in his attack had there been two or three guys carrying guns in the vincinity.
Not just laws, either. We can have all the gun friendly laws out there but that still won't be enough. We need more people to be familiar with firearms and understand that they can be used as tools to deter violence.
That's not common sense, Mike Haas. All you are saying is that the NRA supports infringing upon the Second Amendment. Good thing I prefer the GOA.
Are we also going to start being subject to background checks on axes, materials for pipe bombs, fertilizer, vehicles, etc. to make sure that crazy people don't have access to them? Hell, just because a person can't buy something doesn't mean he can't get something.
By singling out guns instead of other objects that can be used to kill, you are pretty much siding with gun control lobbies although you might not realize it.
Instead of focusing on whether a nutcase can buy a gun or not, we need to focus on getting enough guns in the hands of the peaceful citizens. If some nutcase is intent on killing, no law is going to stop him. But what will stop him is if a citizen with a firearm takes him out. I bet Cho wouldn't have been as successful in his attack had there been two or three guys carrying guns in the vincinity.
Not just laws, either. We can have all the gun friendly laws out there but that still won't be enough. We need more people to be familiar with firearms and understand that they can be used as tools to deter violence.
rhinov
Member
Can someone please tell me what is the differance between being sent for an evaluation and being formally committed. Are you first sent for an evaluation and then committed if found to be a danger. I tried to read West Virginia law regarding this but I honestly didn't understand what I was reading.
gunsmith
member
Sure sounds like Rosi O'donnel and Alec Baldwin
Shrinkmd
Member
Being sent by who? If you're throwing a fit somewhere at home or in public, either the local outreach team or the police might take you to the emergency room. Or maybe your family, or even you. Once you're in the ER, expect blood work, long waits to be seen, and then some discussion about what kind of help (if any) you need. If you have insurance, they aren't going to approve an inpatient stay unless you meet criteria as strict as that for commitment. If you're just sad, you're getting a script and a "crisis" appointment for maybe a week or two later (as opposed to the 2 month or more wait at the clinic usually)
For the screener or doc in the ER to want to keep you, you need to be suicidal, homicidal, or so discombobulated that you couldn't survive on the streets. Crazy alone usually doesn't (and shouldn't) cut it. And then, by law, you are asked to sign yourself in voluntarily. Most places, if you refuse to sign in, then it's a temporary order (in MA, a pink paper you filled out) and then it can go to a judge if you still want out.
I know abuses and odd things happen, but in practical experience, if you're sitting there, minding your business, it is tough to wind up in these circumstances without having something wrong, which lots of people need to see (your family, the police, the ER staff, the docs there, the docs on the unit, the judge) There is due process (although not as strict as criminal, and we know the problems that can happen there)
Does that paint a better picture?
Re: Dangers of framing the RKBA as a "public health issue"...
I remember a Surgeon General named Kessler who favored banning cigarettes; citing health statistics. When that was deemed unworkable, they settled for the biggest lawsuit in history, against the tobacco companies.
Gun owners, and the gun industry, are much more vulnerable targets than was big tobacco, IMO.
All this discussion about the details of "mental competency", as though it's a static definition, strikes me as quite naive. A whole segment of the gun grabbers who are also health professionals are chomping at the bit to install the new wording which would accomplish their agenda...hey, they probably have the language formulated already, constitutional issues be damned.
I remember a Surgeon General named Kessler who favored banning cigarettes; citing health statistics. When that was deemed unworkable, they settled for the biggest lawsuit in history, against the tobacco companies.
Gun owners, and the gun industry, are much more vulnerable targets than was big tobacco, IMO.
All this discussion about the details of "mental competency", as though it's a static definition, strikes me as quite naive. A whole segment of the gun grabbers who are also health professionals are chomping at the bit to install the new wording which would accomplish their agenda...hey, they probably have the language formulated already, constitutional issues be damned.
JohnBT
Member
The definition of legal incompetency hasn't changed during the 30+ years I've been working with psychiatric patients. Legal incompentency is a difficult standard to meet/prove.
John
John
RavenVT100
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,107
shrinkmd and JohnBT:
I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on states that penalize people for having voluntarily sought help in the past, by denying them the ability to own a firearm. I'm talking more along the lines of people who were given ritalin for ADD in college, or were put on a prescription sleep aid for insomnia. Do you warn your potential patients that they may be giving up certain civil liberties on a permanent basis for having had contact with you?
The Federal system we have is one thing. Other states are far more strict.
I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on states that penalize people for having voluntarily sought help in the past, by denying them the ability to own a firearm. I'm talking more along the lines of people who were given ritalin for ADD in college, or were put on a prescription sleep aid for insomnia. Do you warn your potential patients that they may be giving up certain civil liberties on a permanent basis for having had contact with you?
The Federal system we have is one thing. Other states are far more strict.
I see problems with the current system and I think we should be careful about expanding it in any way. I share a concern with the previous poster. Currently, there is no way to regain you RKBA once you lose it. If you were involunatrily admitted at 17, somehow recover, you are out of luck, no matter what you present functioning is.
I have worked with people that were involuntarily admitted. In some cases, it was not overly difficult to get the admission. There are some judges that have good working relationships with the clinicians seekeing the admissions and there are some that would rather err on the side of caution. This is why I do not belive a lifetime ban is fair.
I have worked with people that were involuntarily admitted. In some cases, it was not overly difficult to get the admission. There are some judges that have good working relationships with the clinicians seekeing the admissions and there are some that would rather err on the side of caution. This is why I do not belive a lifetime ban is fair.
JohnBT
Member
I don't believe a lifetime ban is fair most people. I can think of a few who have deserved one strike and your out.
"Do you warn your potential patients that they may be giving up certain civil liberties on a permanent basis for having had contact with you?"
Not with me, I'm in the middle more or less working with the patients/clients. I do have easy access to their medical/psychiatric/psychological reports, etc., some of it going back decades depending on the age of the person and age of onset.
I have never seen or heard of a person in Virginia losing the rights we're discussing unless they were adjudicated. A diagnosis isn't enough, there needs to be legal proceeding of some sort.
John
"Do you warn your potential patients that they may be giving up certain civil liberties on a permanent basis for having had contact with you?"
Not with me, I'm in the middle more or less working with the patients/clients. I do have easy access to their medical/psychiatric/psychological reports, etc., some of it going back decades depending on the age of the person and age of onset.
I have never seen or heard of a person in Virginia losing the rights we're discussing unless they were adjudicated. A diagnosis isn't enough, there needs to be legal proceeding of some sort.
John
-The majority of individuals who are involuntarily committed in this country, or would be potentially subject to a firearms restriction, are not private pay.
-There is no shortage of individuals with profound mental health dysfunction.
-No one in the MH system has to "look" for either the clients or the dysfunction; both have a tendency to find their way to to the public's attention.
-MH clinicians would be DELIGHTED to NOT find a compelling reason to diagnose as many persons as they do with serious mental health conditions.
-MH facilities (state hospitals, etc..) in many jurisdictions are forced to turn away involuntary commitments due to lack of bed space.
-In most communities, there are typically no where near sufficient clinicians, facilities, or funds available to appropriately address the mental health needs of the public.
-You have a great deal to learn about MH.
cuchulainn
Member
Kessler was head of the FDA, not surgeon general, and although he did look at banning cigarettes (as unapproved drug-delivery devices, interestingly enough), it was not the FDA that sued tobacco companies -- or at least not the big-money cases that you're talking about. There was one administrative law case brought by FDA, but the tobacco companies WON that one (finding: FDA doesn't have power under the FDCA to regulate cigarettes).
Who is "mentally ill"? Is it just someone who is a "danger to society"? Someone provable tendency to do harm to others? Gets a little depressed from time to time? Hit someone once on the playground in grade school? Wrote a violent story once or wrote about guns? Someone with Tourette's syndrome? How about someone with ADD, ADHD, or a general inability to fit into "normal society" and do all their school work?
It makes a hell of a difference. It doesn't matter if "mentally ill" is well-defined now, legally. It's still a moving target because they can simply re-define what is medically considered "mentally ill". (It has been done before, and it will be done again.) And don't think that psychiatrists and psychologists won't, either - they're some of the most rabidly leftist, politically correct, anti-male-behavior people out there. Just look at how "mental health" standards have changed in the last 20 years. Ritalin has gone from a fringe drug to something most pre-teen males are on, and we've got elementary students on antidepressants.
Meanwhile, someone who commits actual crimes like rape, murder, and robbery is just "sick", and gets off scotch free more often than he should, going back to their life of crime...
No.
Once again, for the purpose of firearms restriction, the same general criteria that is used to determine necessity of involuntary hospitalization: an individual diagnosed with uncontrolled (or persistent transient uncontrollability of) schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or depressive disorder, and accompanying and compelling acts and/or expressions of imminent risk of causing greivous physical injury or death to themselves or another person.
araiford
Member
Only mentally ill people would want to own guns Coming soon.
- Status
